How valid is the "Rome fell because of moral degeneracy

The fact that essentially no modern day professional historians espouse that explanation and the only people who do are modern day reactionaries using it to bolster their own agenda should give you a pretty good idea

>>2307588
Next to zero credibility. Multiple military coups, a military more loyal to their general than their Empire, increasing ruralization of the population, pressure from invading Germanics, and poor administration of lands/collection of taxes are the largest causes.

>>2307588
>immigration
that's a little different from the forceful invasion by various tribes. though I think the ostro-goths or some group were allowed to settle within the empire after being displaced by invading Huns

>>2307595
additionally the splitting of the empire robbed the WRE of all the wealthiest provinces

>>2307588
It has no validity

>>2307588
I think its more appropriate to attribute the fall of the Roman Empire to a decline analogous to the expression: "death by a thousand wounds". Mass migrations of germanics being only one of the wounds suffered among many.

out of curiosity

How big was Rome at its peak compared to Ramses II Egyptian Empire at its peak?

>>2307607
The splitting was more and effect than cause

>>2307621
It was basically Egypt plus most of Europe and bits of Asia.

>>2307588
Utter nonsense. Rome fell because of a fuck ton of issues spanning centuries that lead to a cascading systems failure.

Flimsy laws of succession
Military coups and civil wars
A fucked economy because of those coups and little understanding of inflation leading to a proto-feudal system
A manpower shortage in the army because nobody wanted to enlist and risk being caught up in a civil war, creating a reliance on foreign soldiers
Treating said foreign soldiers like dog shit for being foreign despite the fact that they make up nearly all of your fighting force
Capable generals being eliminated for gaining too much popularity
Political grand standing and posturing in times of crisis instead of compromising because nobody realized just how fragile the state was
Religious fracturing causing unrest

The only group of barbarians to be allowed to settle in Roman turf were the Goths, who were treated like shit and the issue came to a head when Honorius had the women and children of the Gothic legionaires murdered in Illyria.

Muh degeneracy and muh immigration are /pol/ memes.

The effect of christianity becoming widespread in the empire led to a manpower crisis for the roman army, leading emperors to hire foreigners as troops.

So you have a foreign belief system and foreign troops maintaing the empire-which led to its ruin

>>2307641
>Political grand standing and posturing in times of crisis instead of compromising because nobody realized just how fragile the state was
this is one that always interested me, it seems like the roman leadership had no conception that the empire could fall

>>2307588
its false, we all know Rome fell due to [contemporary issue I am against]

>>2307588
somewhat valid, but not verymuch so

http://courses.washington.edu/rome250/gallery/ROME%20250/210%20Reasons.htm

File: ?.png (3KB, 310x253px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 310x253px

>>2307593
(((professional historians)))

>>2307783
>internet wikipedia warriors

>>2307588
It's generally safe to assume that anyone trying to directly relate some historical event to some modern political issue is full of shit.

The situation in Rome was so tremendously different from the world today, and the causes for the fall of Rome were so numerous that you can't just blame one or two things. The claim that immigrants and "degeneracy" are what brought down Rome is an incredibly simplistic view of things that only holds up if you take a very biased, superficial view of the situation. It holds about as much weight as the claim that the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars were purely the result of all of Europe deciding they wanted a Bourbon King on the throne of France.

>>2307588
True to an extent. I don't know where other posters are getting that no modern historian believes these to be partial causes; immigration at the very least posed serious problems to communal stability.

>be white
>make civilization
>mix with lower races
>degenerate
>get conquered by true white people

File: rome.png (63KB, 687x716px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 687x716px

>>2307593
Basically this. Nobody since Gibbon in the late 1700s has seriously espoused such a view. There are dozens of superior arguments out there.